lol Just not right now.
For optimal 4k performance you pretty much need dual gpus right now, with CF 290 or SLI 970 being the minimum. If you could add a 2nd gpu that would help a lot, assuming your system can run it. If the games you play don't use CF, then the only major upgrade would be a 980ti or fury x, and overclocked.
I don't play all the games you listed but h1z1 and fallout 4 both run like crap.
I would say either get a 980ti/fury x or wait for the next generation of cards.
How big is your 4k monitor? If it is 32" or smaller consider dropping AA altogether to get a good performance boost.
Also what are the specs of the rest of your system?
Even if you take the Fury the performance upgrade wont be all that noticeable, you should wait until Nvidia and AMD show off their fancy new 14nm chips later this year and just play on a lower resolution until then
Well yeah, AMD and Nvidia will probably launch some new gpu´s this year.
The R9-290 still has enough power to hold out.
The Fury is a nice jump up from the 290, but i think that i would just wait for the new gen gpu´s.
For me 390x is a no go, and it would depend on how much you can get for the 290x when you sell it....
A tempory upgrade if you can't get a good price on your 290x would be a 2nd 290x, but you have the crossfire problems, which aren't all that bad, sure a few games don't work in crossfire, but for the most part they do, and scale really well.
If you get a good money for your 290x, i would avoid the nano, and look towards the Sapphire TriX, not the nitro though as the premium doesn't seem worth it, i know in the UK right now, the TriX is £407, where as the Nitro is £439-455.
You could also consider maybe a cheap GTX980 and hope it over-clocks like a beast, but given Nvidia's recent what seems like lack of ethics, breaking AMD performance in Gameworks games, and it now seems like they are even gimping their own older cards, I wouldn't get a Nvidia product out of principle right now.
To give you my advice, and this is sort of relevant considering I recently rid of my R9-290 for a Gigabyte Windforce R9 Fury, I will say this.
R9-390 is remotely faster than the 290 without question. though as many have said it depends. if you can find a good price on the 290 then by all means consider that, but the R9-390 is faster than the 290. NOT BY MUCH, but it's faster. and let me remind you, the R9-390 stock clocks are most likely what you're going to get out of a R9-290/290x after an overclock. the R9-290/290x was a serious poor overclocker in a real world scenario. you weren't going to push the R9-290/290x memory clocks to 1500mhz or 6000mhz. and the most people saw when it came to overclocking the 290/290x on the core 1100mhz at the most. most of these 390/390x cards have their stock clocks at 1050mhz or even 1100mhz out the box.. for example MSI's Twin Frozr (which has a stock clock of 1100mhz straight out the box) and those come with 8GiBs of VRAM. realistically you're never going to use all 8GiBs of VRAM in most if not all games. but it's good to have..
Now for the R9-Fury vs the 390/390x or the 290/290x is it worth an upgrade? well it depends on how much you can pick up a Fury card.. the Fury is a massive upgrade compared to a 390/390x.. it's roughly 15% in all games. though I must remind you, he Fury is faster than the 390/390x and the GTX 980 for future reference. as for the Fury Nano vs the Fury. well from a spec to spec comparison, the Fury Nano should beat it, though in real world scenarios the R9 Fury (non X) beats it in most cases or it's just equal in some. of course could be a margin of error.
Either way, should you upgrade to a Fury from a R9-290? before I say what you should get, be realistic you're probably not going to be playing 4K games all too much unless you turn down the filters a bit. and just turn off AA since you're not going to need it. I would just recommend the Fury Nano if you hate long cards. mind you that's another thing no one here seems to be talking about. all of the Fury (Non-X cards) are long as shit for no reason.. 303mm or 12 inches is ridiculous.. especially considering the R9 Fury Nano is damn near 5 inches or 250+mm in length and performs equally or about the same.
my advice to you is get what you can afford. if you can afford the R9-390/390x then by all means pick that up, if you can afford the Fury (non-X) or the Fury Nano. then pick what fits in your case. cause the Fury (non-X) cards are un-necessarily long.
if i have to recommend a upgrade right now.
then a 980Ti or a Fury, depending on what you can afford.
The Nano would not be a bad choice either, but its slightly slower then the Fury in some games,
and it has some thermal throttle issues.
There for its ofc a bit cheaper then the Fury.
As a fellow graphics whore I have to tell you what I did when I was using a Gtx 770 4gb and trying to play Bf4 at ultra. Take a hit to the pride and go to high settings instead of ultra, or go from very high to high, or high to medium. Your better off doing that then spending $500 for a Fury or $375 for a R9 390x, only to find that neither of them are truly capable of playing 4k at 60fps. Wait for Pascal or Greenland, and then blow $500 on whatever the better performer is at that price point. Hopefully you can get the same performance of an overclocked 980 TI for sub $500 with the new generation of cards. And that would enable 4k at high with low AA.
He could start saving now and be able to afford the high end Pascal GPU when it drops.
1 Like
I would say either a 980ti or a FuryX
have you thought about getting a second 290 and running it in crossfire?
1 Like
i am in the same boat i have a r9 290( unlocked to a 290x) and running at stock 390x speeds for memory and core clock. i am going to wait until AMD launches there new cards later this year before i upgrade. i refuse to buy nvidia based on how they have been doing a lot of things that i consider anti consumer.
if you can deal with how nvidia does treat its consumers then go for it when they launch there new cards. other wise join me and buy AMD later this year
1 Like